I have worked at several startups where I was like employee number ten, and you can always feel the culture shift the moment they start hiring MBAs.
Yea. I can’t think of a single MBA I’ve met that wasn’t a piece of shit.
Cause theyre literally given inflated egos about “how great your business acumen is” when really theyre morally bankrupt parasites who finished (compared to real degrees) coloring books.
Jesus Christ… I’ve been a principal software engineer for 6 years now and my workplace is paying for a free MBA… should I just quit and say no thanks???
Do it - the macro effect comes from the scores of people who only have an MBA. Adding a business degree to an engineering degree likely won’t change your understanding of reality your grounded engineering view gives you.
I reckon there are better free ways to waste your time, and many don’t require moral corruption.
Depends, do you think you can hold on to your humanity? Are you looking forward to working along side some of the most soul crushing people you will ever know? Really, it’s nothing more than training you to view humans as nothing more than a commodity. If you are cool with either thinking that way or operating in an environment that demands that kind of thinking…
I just wanted to add it to my resume for a pay raise… it’s a nonprofit university and completely online, so the toxic networking aspect has been minimal thus far.
Do it, it’s just better for your bank account. Kickbacks appreciated.
I have a PhD in research psychology, and worked with researchers in a lot of other disciplines. I have been mansplained about topics in my field (including the topic of my dissertation) by more MBAs than any other field. More often than not they are vastly oversimplifying or just getting things completely wrong. Try telling them that though and it’s like talking to a wall.
I wonder if their general incompetence at most things makes them desperate to be good at something that actually matters to the point that they feel the need to act smart about shit they don’t really understand. Especially when you think about the nature of their field and how horrible their peers are/also are it really starts to be a bad feedback loop. And then there’s the extra fun part about the kind of people that MBA programs attract in the first place.
It must be awful, them constantly having to justify their existence as parasites. I’d feel bad for them if they didn’t cause huge amounts of damage at all levels while avoiding therapy.
Yeah I do think there is something to the culture of MBA programs. All the information available for current and prospective students at my university was very much of the tone that mbas change the world. The halls of the business school were filled with famous rich people who’d visited the school or gifted money along with plaques about MBA grads and the amazing things they did. It’s just full of subtle reminders about how the degree is a gateway to being some big powerful person. I’m sure that makes an impact on the students’ attitudes.
I work with one on the daily. I swear, his primary expertise is in buzzwords. Tried to tell me how much better a certain format for documenting requirements is because I can let the people that require something do the documenting for me.
Never mind that this format is neither feasible outside his example case, nor even sufficient for this specific case.
Stem major checking in for an arts/humanities major to hold hands with
deleted by creator
The real problem is believing there’s an objective difference between art, science, humanities, etc. It’s an artificial division under capitalism between what’s directly useful for profit, control, etc. and what’s not.
Regardless, yeah fuck business school. That’s got no value to anybody.
As a STEM graduate, I would much rather hold hands with an econ graduate than a business graduate. Economists can do real good for the world, while MBAs seem to be mostly harmful.
Economists can do real good for the world
If you put 10 economists in a room, you’ll get 11 opinions.
Yeah, outside of some very rudimentary principals, macro-economics is basically astrology for MBA bros.
To be fair, there are some good retrospective economists. “A happened because of X, Y and Z.”
But an economist that predicts the future is always wrong, often spectacularly.
Oh, agreed. Retrospective economic research is valuable.
Fucking finally we’re talking sense.
The ownership class and their mba lackeys have done a real bang up job not only separating the two cultures, but getting them both to think through the mental model of business and profit whenever they’re pondering how to practice their profession.
As an econ major with a BS, please don’t lump me in with the econ majors who went to business school for a MBA. I like cool math, not venture capitalism cancer.
Prove your purity
The only thing funny about the Laffer curve is how little it now matters.
It was used to justify Reagnomics, which then immediately proved we weren’t nearly as high on the Laffer curve as we assumed. Because of this, we have concrete evidence that lowering taxes on the rich doesn’t increase government revenues.
Yet we’re still doing that 50 years later. Despite the only vaguely scientific thing behind it proving it doesn’t work decades ago.
Imagine being in a catholic family, reading the Bible, and always walking away thinking that Judas did the right thing (despite everything else the Bible says). That’s US economic policy for the last 50 years.
Again!
My favorite paper published last year includes the following, now scientifically proven statements:
The preponderance of the evidence shows that rising income inequality slows economic growth [3], [4], [5], [6]. Recent analyses have shown that once one controls for wealth inequality the negative effect of income inequality on economic growth falls away as statistically insignificant, and that it has in fact been wealth inequality that has been detrimental to growth either in an inverse linear form or in the form of an inverse u-shape À la Kuznets [7], [8], [9], [10].
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003801212400003X
So economically speaking, Econ math just proved that we need to eat the rich in order to improve anything.
From the same paper above:
From a policy perspective, the ongoing increase in the concentration of wealth is one of the main socio-economic failures of our time [1]. Not only is it likely to depress economic growth in some countries, as we measure here, it has fueled social unrest, political polarization, and populist nationalism… redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor may well be growth-enhancing in most countries
Wdy think of Gary’s Economics?
I’m a fan :) Not many multi-millionaires are out there making YouTube videos about wealth concentration being bad. But he is. And he’s very well spoken, highly intelligent, and knows what he’s talking about (at least 99% of the time). It’s refreshing to say the least. Here’s hoping he keeps gaining traction and a wider audience🤞 If anyone can get people to understand how to fix our system, it’s him.
I am glad. I thought he passed the sniff test.
When your econ program is in a business college, they push the MBA hardcore. So glad I never entertained that.
The only problem is that VIVALDI could not implement feature of 5 minutes of work which was requested many years ago. Fuck’em.
One may draw upon the dark arts with any degree. -BA in Film, make ads
Just want to chime in and say that Karl Marx was also an econ major.
Yet, being an economist, he also neglected to base his theories in any real science, only in “business science”, which is why I’m a proponent of Kropotkin instead.
I love my artists. Without their graceful hands, I would’ve never made it through school with much depth!
Who is holding them up in the sky?
Astrology!
Businesses would not be terrible if business education is actually tempered with some humanities. In fact, I am strongly of the opinion that every field of study should have some humanities component to them. None of the fields exist in vacuum, we have to have at least, some appreciation of other fields, lest we risk creating silos in the name of organization. And that is precisely happening in this age of hyper-specialization.
100%.
Children are always told that they could become a scientist or engineer one day and that this would be a great thing to achieve. Scientists and engineers are so highly regarded, yet they are often complicit in creating the necessary technology and machinery for most of the worlds worst projects. Climate change, plastic pollution, nuclear weapons, are all created by the worlds smartest and all the while they’re being told they’re doing a great job and bettering the world.
Ethics needs to be mandatory in all STEM studies. Jesus at least just make them watch Oppenheimer.
Does it have to be Jesus who makes them watch it or is there another deity we can use?
It is possible to degrade Jesus to just an exclamation word with no real meaning. I recommend this approach to any and all deities.
Ethics is largely mandatory for engineering majors (source: am finishing my bachelor’s in electrical engineering), but the first job or project you take will ask you to throw that out the window. (Source: family members who are also engineers)
There are two areas of safety considered: Operator/client safety, and regulatory compliance. All other safeguards are optional and ignoring them is encouraged.
As a civil engineer with only a tiny bit of experience cos I switched to software. That holds true. Environmental and other ethical concerns are not even an afterthought in vast majority of engineering projects.
As a civil engineer with only a tiny bit of experience cos I switched to software.
Holy shit, I’m not the only one?!
I think this is true of most civil engineering majors I know. After getting their degrees, very few actually ended up working in civil engineering because the money was better in software or other tech.
I had very little ethics being taught in my academic career. Most of what i know is high school level philosophy (from a country that still used to care about that stuff but aiming to change it soon). I would have loved more humanity courses. On the other hand, if you had given me the choice between a course in my speciality and a humanity course, I would have chose the specialty one every time
Good point, there was also an ethics module in my engineering studies, but it didn’t really encourage you to think about where you’re employed, just what to do what you’re there. Which is useless
Funny you should say that, because those very humanities aspects of what I studied, Economics, lead STEM students to disparage it as a non-scientific field built of gospel and tenets. As if Humanities diminished the quality of the research and teaching within the Economics field.
So while I agree, and it’s good to see you being upvoted, in a different scenario the application of your thoughts about this will lead the person sharing their experience to get massively downvoted in an attempt to shame them for studying a “soft science”.
Big gripe of mine is the distinction of “soft” and “hard” science. I’m a linguist and it surprises people that I had to take advanced statistics, set theory, know the basics of acoustics, and have an understanding of calculus. But just because a field requires nuance and observational data doesn’t mean it’s automatically less rigorous than a field that deals exclusively with numbers. Can’t exclusively rely on statistical models to draw conclusions about economic trends or linguistic phenomena because the economy and language don’t exist outside of human society
Exactly! So many people assume the science of economics is unfounded because of what some purported “economists” say online or because of some already-irrelevant methodologies the science has abandoned for years already…
The most egregious problem being assuming that the methodology isn’t sound and scientific, and that it instead depends on the whims of the researcher (here they would place researcher in quotation marks, I imagine).
I have had to do game theory, statistics, econometrics, data science (thanks to my chosen specialisation), a lot of math especially about optimisations and linear algebra… And the quality of the academic research is empirical. Rarely will you even find a paper that only uses qualitative data in economics, except maybe in the behavioural economics field. Most often we use natural experiments to replicate RCTs within a macro environment, or double-blind experiments to investigate an economic agent’s systemic preferences and responses within a micro environment…
People who complain about the superficiality of the “soft sciences” have never stepped foot in a class beyond the very basics of that subject taught in highschool. They therefore project their current knowledge on the entire field, marring it…
Immanuel Kant has left the chat
I really do wish humanities were not actually considered as ‘lesser’ to the sciences. But I have actually found it to be greater of the sciences, simply because of the importance and the difficulty of questions it tackles. I have spent a fairly long time reading on philosophy, history, economics. I am not an expert, in fact, I am really far from it, but I have really come to an understanding the importance of these fields. But that’s just me. Most just consider them not important because they don’t understand. I just hope that we can rectify with better academic curriculum.
Part of the issue is that the quality of the research is often really low, just a jumble of untested and untestable hypotheses that certain ‘scientists’ in these fields try to push and that get traction because they sound good. On some level it comes with the subject matter that is typically very hard to research, but too many people in these fields are entirely lacking in scientific rigour.
Source: I studied sociology and history in university.
Good, an MBA is just a degree in exploitation. I will fight you over this take like a goddamn racoon over the last piece of food in the dumpster.
But what if you’re right and I want to join?
I’ll see you there
People are often young and naive when they choose what to study. There are some decent people and some assholes among business majors, just like with most other groups of people if you look closely.
Had a friend who was, for whatever reason, in an ethics class where everyone else there was in business. Apparently the professor at one point told them outloud something to the effect of “oh my god, I have never seen a more unethical group of people”(heavily paraphrased, this was a decade ago).
Good and bad exist everywhere, but certain programs do certainly attract greater numbers of good or bad people than others. “How to generate shareholder wealth and make yourself rich” is going to attact a certain type of person more than other types.
There are certainly nice and polite people everywhere, but decency is a matter of ethics in this context, I would say. At least that’s how I’m reading it.
Like I’m a nice guy, but I’m not going to pretend it’s decent of me to replace data workers with software automation, even if it’s just the natural outcome of me putting my education into practice.
I guess the point is that MBA systematically trains you to be unethical in order to do well
Econ is for soothsayers, idiots, cultists and abusers, don’t bother to change my mind.
the entrails say… “something, something, irrational exuberance”
Yeah, yeah, that’s the problems with you entrailists, always buying into the fantasy of deciphering the economy from some gore. Now a principled economic astrologer, like myself? Well, let’s just say MY portfolio has never hit red.
I find the field is only good when combined with humanities as a focal point, e.g. economic history or economic anthropology. It needs grounded otherwise it goes full American Psycho.
There are STEM versions of economics as well which really end up being more behavior science and anthropology crossed with game theory.
Game theory is good
Economics also plays a huge role in conservation as well.
Sadly the focus is put on making the conservation work for the economic interests rather than the economy working for conservation efforts.
My econ professors did not like me that much when I had to take their classes for my conservation degree.
I am glad you say soothsayers, I have been saying for decades, and even in this comment section before getting to this comment, that macro-economics is essentially astrology for MBA bros
Political Economy is the real economics degree.
Yeah but an MBA is also a post graduate degree. A huge chunk of MBAs have undergrad degrees in something like STEM or humanities.
And with the power of that knowledge they decided to specialize and get a masters of exploitation.
Everyone who makes money in this country exploits someone or something
